Alibi believability: Corroborator certainty,cooperativeness and relationship with the defendant

Alibi believability can be affected by characteristics of the alibi corroborator, including the relationship between the defendant and corroborator, which has been studied extensively by researchers. The corroborator's certainty that they were together at the time of the crime may also influence alibi believability, but only a few studies have examined this. Another factor that may affect believability is the corroborator's cooperativeness with the police, which is yet to be studied in the alibi context. Online U.S. participants recruited from CloudResearch (N = 280) acted as mock jurors and evaluated a mock arson case where the defendant used an alibi defence. The alibi corroborator's relationship to the defendant (brother/neighbour), the certainty that they were together at the time (65%/100%) and cooperativeness with police (cooperative/uncooperative) were manipulated between participants. The participants were evenly split when it came to verdict (p > .05) but were more likely to vote guilty when the corroborator was a brother rather than a neighbour (p < .01) and when the brother was uncooperative versus cooperative (p < .05). As expected, alibis were more believable when they were corroborated by a neighbour rather than a brother and when the corroborator was 100% certain that they were together versus 65% certain (ps < .01). Alibis were also more believable when the corroborator cooperated than when he was uncooperative (p < .01). Cooperative (vs. uncooperative) corroborators led to more positive defendant and corroborator views on all six character trait measures (ps < .01). Implications and future directions are discussed.     

In Search of Causes of Hung Juries

A major problem facing the jury system is the hung jury. Several solutions have been proposed i.e., to minimize the decision rule, to create mixed juries, or to give the jury the 'dynamite' instructions. Nevertheless, no efforts have been made to determine the underlying causes of a hung jury. This paper presents an empirical study of hung versus unanimous juries in terms of the deliberation style and content. It suggests ways of avoiding hung juries.     

近20年来美国法律社会心理学研究新进展

20世纪80年代以来美国法律社会心理学在陪审团、证人证言、公民对犯罪的态度等方面的研究取得了一些新成果。从这些新成果可以看出,该领域的研究者们更注重将社会心理学与法学的观点和研究视角相结合,使自己的理论成果更符合实践要求。     

A Defence of Jury Nullification

In both Great Britain and the United States there has been a growing debate about the modern acceptability of jury nullification. Properly understood, juries do not have any constitutional right to ignore the law, but they do have the power to do so nevertheless. Juries that nullify may be motivated by a variety of concerns: too harsh sentences, improper government action, racism, etc. In this article, I shall attempt to defend jury nullification on a number of grounds. First, I discuss the use of general verdicts and reject their replacement in criminal trials by special verdicts. Second, I examine verdicts based upon mistakes and racial prejudice, turning my attention to perverse verdicts and the question of whether or not juries are guilty of legislating when nullifying the law. Finally, I look at the problem of the awarding of excessive damages by juries. My goal will be to provide a sound theoretical defence of the practice of jury nullification.R. Pound, Law in Books and Law in Action, American Law Review 44 (1910),18.The term jury nullification is synonymous with jury equity. The use of jury nullification has been suspected of playing a role in the infamous trials of O. J. Simpson and Rodney King in the last decade. See People v Simpson, No. BA097211 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1995); People v Powell, No. BA035498 (Cal. Super. Ct. 1991).     

Juror Perceptions in a Rape Trial: Examining the Complainant's Ingestion of Chemical Substances Prior to Sexual Assault

This study examined the impact of a rape complainant's willingness to ingest a chemical substance and the type of ingested substance on the decisions of 229 mock jurors. Jurors were influenced by the type of substance used by the complainant, the complainant's willingness to use a substance, and rape myths. The complainant's ingestion of alcohol (compared to gamma-hydroxybutrate [GHB] and marijuana) led to the highest guilt ratings for the defendant. The complainant who willingly ingested a substance was viewed as less credible and more to blame for the rape compared to one who unwillingly used a substance. The complainant was perceived as the most credible when she unwillingly ingested GHB or marijuana. Jurors high in rape myth acceptance gave lower ratings of guilt to the defendant compared to jurors with lower rape myth acceptance. Overall, the results highlight several juror and case factors that might bias jurors in actual rape trials.